Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time: Bush Continues Anti-Regulatory Efforts with Industry Nominee to CPSC Scientific Consultant Sparks Controversy over Conflicts of Interest In Congress, No Shortage of Fuel Economy Proposals

Thursday, President Bush nominated Michael Baroody to be a commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Baroody is the current executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group whose mission includes "shaping a legislative and regulatory environment" on behalf of manufacturers. Baroody's ability to shape America's regulatory environment will take on new meaning if he becomes a CPSC commissioner. The CPSC is the independent agency charged with protecting the public from dangerous products. The commissioners (of which there are only three) must be able to work with manufacturers to assess product safety, but also exert authority when industry cooperation does not go far enough in protecting the public. If you think a commissioner with such obvious strong ties to the industry he must regulate is a bad idea, you are not alone. Public interest groups are already sounding the alarms, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she will give the nomination "thorough scrutiny," according to the LA Times. As Reg•Watch has blogged in the past, the CPSC has been short a commissioner since July, and its voting quorum recently expired. I find it depressing to have to contemplate which is worse: a commissioner like Michael Baroody, or no commissioner at all.

OMB Watch has created a new web center to be the one-stop source for news and developments on President Bush's recent amendments to Executive Order 12866. The web center will be frequently updated with fresh insights, news from Capitol Hill, and links to media coverage.

Rep. John Dingell has written an interesting piece in today's issue of The Hill. Dingell discusses the virtue of CAFE standards (the minimum miles per gallon requirements automakers must meet) and the need to combat global climate change. However, the article reflects the Michigan Democrat's tension between progressive environmental policy and appeasing his automaker constituents. Dingell touts the success of the CAFE program (which he helped create) but offers more questions than solutions in regulating carbon emissions: Are CAFE standards in their current form still the most effective way to achieve their stated objective? Further still, has the objective changed? Can a regulatory structure created in the 1970s evolve in such a way as to combat a 21st century challenge with 21st century technologies? He then goes on to warn Congress against rushing into any climate change legislation, and points out that his Energy and Commerce Committee will hold nine hearings in the month of March on energy independence and climate change. The article comes the same day as an Energy and Air Quality subcommittee hearing on President Bush's CAFE reform proposal. According to Reuters, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the cap-and-trade approach which would avoid actually raising fuel efficiency standards. Congressional wonkery aside, the reality is improved CAFE standards would mitigate carbon emissions and save drivers money. With measures of American fuel economy in decline, it is past time Congress get its act together and improve federal fuel economy standards.